Book of Mormon set ablaze on church door step
A fire outside a Mormon church in
Littleton is being investigated as a bias-motivated arson that may
have stemmed from the church's position on a gay marriage amendment. November 12th, 2008 @ 12:12pm
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Most Popular
Site Index
News |
Weather
Traffic |
TV
Sports
Opinion |
Radio |
Classifieds
Announcements
Events
Movies |
Advertise with KSL
Other Resources
Wireless
Legal
Sister Sites
|
© 2009 ksl.com KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT A Division of Bonneville International m27
KSL's public inspection files, including the Children's Television Programming Reports and the DTV Quarterly Activity Station Report, are available for viewing during regular office hours at the KSL Broadcast House.
likewise the "mormons" who like marrying a lot of chicks already do that as well, largely without having people stick their nose in, with one glaring exception (lookin at you, Texas).
I agree that we should let people live their lives loving the people they want to love, but I don't believe that we should look the other way when people want to break the law, vandalize buildings, threaten people that don't believe the way you do and all in the name of discrimination! This is what has made me SO against Prop 8-the way the people that think it shouldn't pass are acting! They have shown their true colors over the past week and I don't want to see them getting their way because they destroyed everyone that opposed them!!!
there are no rights for marriage let alone homosexual marriage in the constitution?
Please show me where there are?
But Mormons will just take it quietly and move on, as we always do.
- Muslims follow the Koran and worship in mosques.
- Jewish believers worship in synagogues and follow the Old Testament Bible.
If you're going to make a comment, might be good if you had the analogies and comparisons correctly matched.
Below is Andersen's shortened version to rebuttals to ten of the most common arguments that were proffered against the marriage amendment and an explanation of why the need for state and national constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman are essential. To read his entire explanation please click on the title:
WHY EVERY STATE AND OUR NATION NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
1. "Gay marriage won't affect my marriage or family." This common argument, which is based on false assumptions, is the red herring of the marriage debate. First, this argument ignores the existence of any harm that is not a direct and immediate harm on one's own marriage and family. No rational person would argue, for example, that child pornography should be legalized because it "doesn't affect my marriage or family." See UFI Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation and The Marriage Advantage available at www.unitedfamilies.org.
2. "There are more pressing issues than defining marriage." Opponents of man-woman marriage often list a host of other societal problems that require more urgent attention than marriage-issues ranging from violent crime to economic hardship. To these opponents, marriage is simply a side issue used to distract voters from "real" issues such as gas prices and global warming. What these opponents do not appreciate, however, is that the root cause of many of the social and economic ills facing our nation and our communities is the disintegration of the family.
3. "Marriage is not a constitutional issue." Unfortunately, activist judges have made marriage a constitutional issue. While opponents of man-woman marriage clamor that we should "keep politicians out of marriage," unelected judges have already entered that realm and have caused great damage in overriding the will of the people.
4. "You can't legislate morality." Every law-be it a statute, an ordinance, or a regulation-legislates morality because laws are the central means by which society collectively draws lines between right and wrong.
5. "Gay marriage can provide the same level of benefits as man-woman marriage." No other social institution has ever provided or will ever provide the same level of benefits as marriage between a man and a woman.
6. "Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married." Marriage has a far more fundamental and influential role than simply the public or legal recognition of "love." Many people love each other, but love is not the sole basis for allowing them to marry.
7. "People should be free to define 'marriage' for themselves." The purpose of defining anything under the law is to preserve and to promote the order and stability of societal institutions. If people were left to define these social institutions for themselves, there would be no consensus on why these institutions exist and what purpose they serve.
8. "Marriage is solely a religious institution that has no place in the law." No one can deny the important role that marriage has in the doctrines of religions and the beliefs of religious adherents. However, such religious importance is no reason for the law not to recognize and value the social importance of man-woman marriage.
9. "A marriage amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution." Contrary to what the some argue, defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman does not "discriminate" against anyone as that term has been used by the opposition.
10. "Gay marriage will not affect religious institutions or religious adherents." Once again, recent history and logic do not support this argument. If genderless marriage takes over as the primary social unit of society, religious institutions and adherents will face (and already have faced) a social and political onslaught against their religious freedoms.
Fortunately for families in Arizona, California, and Florida, voters recognized the dangers of failing to protect the institution of marriage as the foundation of a family and the cornerstone of society. Unfortunately, this round of our fight for the family has just begun.
read the article again. no one has been associated with this incident yet.
It is entirely KSL reporting that is making this assumption that I believe you might be refering to.
BUt they are showing so much hate towards the LDS faith WHEN the LDS faith was not the only church to be on board with passing this propisition.. not to mention no everyone who voted was Mormon..
Why is it that those east-coasters are always more progressive than the west....
The gay community perceives these protests as VERY little compared to what they have received for decades.
At least their protests didn't result in any constitutional limiting your right to live as you see fit.
oh wait....I do. I have a testimony of my own.
GOD is sad that people are stepping on others in his name.
I know that God would not approve the way the "saints" are treating his other children. That is a plain and precious truth you removed from your own head.
Thankfully there are many leaders of good people throughout the world - Not just the one YOU recognize.
btw....
Saint:
1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, esp. by canonization.
2. a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence.
Tell me how Mormons have a monopoly on that and when God "gave them" this word?
This doesn't mean I agree with this, but you do need to see the other point-of-view. It is a fairly hate-filled and immature way of expressing an opinion, however, and is counter-productive to their cause.
Prop 8 has nothing to do with prejudice - in fact, the campaign to protect marriage between a man and a woman has clearly been conducted with kindness, humanity and respect for those of other viewpoints - while respecting the right to stand for what we know to be true: that marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time and provides the best vehicle for rearing children, that those who engage in homosexual behavior already have domestic partnerships with the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses, and that same-sex marriage represents a real threat to a parent's freedom to prevent their children from being subjected to state-sponsored classroom indoctrination in behavior and values they feel are wrong and harmful to thier children
Then you willingly deny this institution to a particular group....
Then point at groups behavior as proof that they are inherently anti family and evil?
The very fact that this group wants to be married denotes that they are trying to strengthen THEIR society too.
But it almost seems that the majority doesn't want them to have this tool because then they will have no more "proof" to point at to denounce them.
also the tax benifit has nothing to do with religion or worship.
But whether they have my stamp of approval or not is not going to do anything for them. but good point derbeste, really Derbeste great point. you got me on that one.
Show me where in ANY law it stated a person in authority to marry MUST marry anyone that asks him/her?
Just like they now have to perform abortions whenever they are asked currently(I won't give you a sarcasm tag because I don't think are an idiot. A sheep yes...but not stupid.)
These are the same misleading "facts" (read "lies") that got prop 8 past.
And it's just as immoral as the institutions you slam in the name of "rightousness".
Until then, you basically just admitted you have NO retort.
If prop 8 passed and the lds church was doing civil marriages and denied a homosexual couple they would get sued.
Therefore, there needs to be a compelling reason to DENY gays marriage - Not a compelling reason to GRANT it.
It's a variation on "innocent until proven guilty".
Until you can prove that their union is inherently "worse" than yours, you have a moral obligation to treat their unions equally.
1. Show me this "proof". Find me a credible, unbiased source that has proven that same sex couples are inherently worse for a child than Brittany Spears and Kevin Federline are Foster care.
2. If gay families are wrong simply on procreation than you must have to prove firtility to marry. Any woman after menapause should have their marriage voided. If you do not have a child within 1 year after marriage, the same should happen. Any sex performed with concraception will result in end of all government recognition of your marriage. If you divorce, your kids will be taken from you and place in foster care where they can wait until a good, married couple adopts them. That couple can't be infirtile either since gays can't adopt either.
3. If it's unnatural, why does it happen everywhere in nature? http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html (notice that when I make a claim, I provide a source.)
4. You're right. That was fun.
1st in a debate you should compare best to best, no one said anything about Brittany spears and Kelvin Fedelline.
2nd you and I know it is better to have a healthy male and female role model.
2rd You try to tell me that when a friend I know had his father leave his mom and kids for his boy friend that, that was not hard for him, and selfish of the father to do so. Why should we perpetuate abandonment of fathers. (I guess if you want to bring Brittany and Kelvin into this I can play dirty too)
3rd Genetic defects or infertility between to sexes should not be grounds for impeding marriage.
4th dogs crap in the yard, the female lions hunt while the male lion sit on their buts, monkeys throw poop, and etc. are you really justifying your behavior by what a dog does. I mean when I was a little kid I would say will john did it, but I never said but my doggy did it. come on man we are better than that. I find it funny that you talk about these ideas of equality,(inelegance) and philosophy, that would separate us from the animals, then you try to justify our behavior by the animals. that is funny to me.
Now your argument about the constitution was the best one I have seen yet. I do not agree with you 100%. I would go into it more but I have to go home so we will get into it later.
No one is defending divorce but you might ask yourself if rampant divorce has in any way harmed our society. Of course it has. That doesn't mean that marriage should be redefined. That only means that a man and a woman need to be more committed to marriage rather than seeing it as a disposable institution that they can put on or take off at their whim.
Divorces are traumatic for kids but most psychologists will agree that kids still need the influence of a Mom and Dad and not just the Mom (s) or the Dad (s).
Seems to me, then, that the government should not recognize any "marriage" but only civil/economic dependencies.
I Was on you tube watching these protests, I found it amazing how mean, rude, and hateful these people are. They gather around the lds buildings and try to stop them from entering. they yell at them, scream profanities, put signs up on the fences around the lds buildings (fences that are owned by the lds church) hit people. They say that their rights are being taken away, and so on. What rights?
I find if funny that a group of people so HE LL bent on the 1st amendment right of Free Speech skip over the first part of the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Forcing a religion to have to make one of two choices do marriage for every one even if you do not agree with it, or do not do marriages. The Gov. does not, nor should it have the ability to force a religion to be all inclusive.
furthermore, homosexuality is not healthy for society.
The people who are unhappy it did not pass, and are screaming bigotry, think about that the next time you single the lds church out and vandalize it.
Also call me what you want, I am on the lords side.
Get over the fact that the people voted and that not all the people who voted were LDS...
YOU BUNCH OF HATERS!!! HIPPOCRITS!!!
My point is that this is done in some form of hate. The timing is not coincidental to the Prop. 8 stuff.
BTW, guarenteed this would make national news if it were a Torah or Koran!
I agree with you on this though
" Who ever is doing these things knew that the finger would be pointed at the gay community. If that was their intent who knows."
Gay fascists used the media, the internet and their networks to call for "attacks" on Mormon interests and are THEREFORE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCITING ALL OF THIS whether or not every instance is carried out by card-carrying homosexuals. Yeah, right, "I just yelled fire in a crowded theater, I never intended for anybody to get hurt."
Are you seriously suggesting that NONE of the vandalism of church buildings was done in response to the church's stance on prop 8 even though gay activists threatened to retaliate against the church and its members, and called for supporters to attack Mormon interests? When vandals spray "No on Prop 8" graffiti on LDS churches, and others, from the midst of gay protest groups, are caught on camera in the act of defiling our places of worship, do you think they are protesting our stance on abortion?
I personally had my life threatened by a gay activist because I argued for proposition 8. Pro 8 signs around neighborhoods were vandalized and stolen. Cars at homes with Yes on Prop 8 signs were vandalized, cars in church parking lots have been vandalized. There are plenty of indications that gay activists are behind some, if not all, of these actual hate-crimes and many additional threats of violence.
Do you also believe there is no correlation between smoking and cancer?
Incredible!!!
I do blame it on members of the "gay community": the gay movement's fascist leadership who PUBLICLY called for retaliation against the Mormons. If these activist leaders do not represent the core community constituencies view on the matter, they are obliged to remove them as their spokesperson. I wasn't aware that there is any move to replace them with reasonable representatives; but I could be wrong.
It is interesting and informative, however, that most of the voices in the gay community that are calling for reason vs. violence have argued that reason (vs violence is essential for "promoting a supportable public image." Somehow, I would have preferred that they simply condemn crimes against Mormons as an intolerable hate crime.
No, rather than condemning both the call for retaliation and the resulting crimes against Mormons, we hear instead condemnation for thinking ill of the gay community, or for believing that these crimes are linked to their rhetoric. That IS offensive. Apparently it is OK for gay fascists to inflame hatred towards a religious group; but it is not OK to call them on it? Is that what you are saying?
Let's turn the tables. If leaders of the republican party called up its members to retaliate in anger against the mainstream media for their biased support of Obama; and there immediately followed a series of windows shot out at local affiliates, cars vandalized and hateful graffiti on media buildings. If this happened, would you still argue there is no correlation? Would you defend the republican party's leadership against criticism? Would you actually argue that there is no reasonable correlation between the rhetoric and the response?
Would you tell people to, "calm down, don't rush to judgment, we don't know that there is any connection between the hate speech and the hate crime?"
Would you?
Darn tootin' right I'm serious. And if you deny culpability of the gay fascists who, in a spirit of hate and vengeance, publicly called for retaliation against Mormons, then you are mad. Gentle, but mad.
Seems to fit equally as well as your asinine assertions.
Your gay fascists leaders hatefully called on their supporters to abandon peaceful political dialogue and take vengeance upon Mormons.
Any reasonable person can see the difference between supporting lawful political speech and inciting criminal activity.
If you can't, then you pretend to be a law unto yourself and are a threat to civilization.
The girl who dresses provocatively and then frequents seedy ares in town and then has the gall to complain that she was raped. What did she expect?
The gay guy who tries to pick up on a cowboy in a western bar and then gets beat up. He should have kept his nose in his own business.
The robbery victim that walked through central park after dark. Geesh, how stupid can you be.
And you are probably right that the Mormons are doing themselves. It is perfectly logical to assert without evidence that the Mormons did it to themselves; but to balk in the face of videotaped evidence showing that gay activist incited it.
No SFY, the ONLY reason the finger is being pointed at SOME members of the gay community is because they angrily and publicly incited retaliation against the Mormons using venomous and hate-filled speech.
Just proves that you can lead a soul to light, but you can't make him think rationally.
what is more probable a member of his own church did it because prop 8 passed, or an agree homosexual did it because he lost. I am not saying we go and lock up every gay person, that would be wrong, but it is more likely that a gay person did these things. If you can not see that, then that is sad.
Maybe it's just one of the local kids playing a prank?
Or someone TRYING to incite hate?
Just because KSL says so, doesn't mean it is so.
If it were the other way around...everyone and their brother would be flaying the LDS church alive in the press, etc. (or hadn't you all noticed what's been said/done by the gay community and/or its supporters since Prop. 8 passed?
Karma sucks, doesn't it?
Besides....I thought religious people only needed God to care about them. He's "no one"?
Just remember these "Homos" are his kids too.
However, when God issues an update on the Bible declaring that homosexuality is acceptable...I will be the first to do so. Until then, what HE says goes.
I beg to differ.
You act as if I, personally, am trying to get anyone to change their lifestyle. Not I. On the other hand, I do not have to sanction another person's choice. I wouldn't sanction a person's decision to rob a bank, kill someone, text while driving, etc. etc. Doesn't mean they don't have the right to make that decision but I don't have to agree with it.
It should also be a place of worship, not public policy making.
Who determines what is worthless? You? Me? Ok, I declare that PETA is a worthless cause and everyone is now prohibited from contributing to that organization.
So you believe by advocating a position, the church stripped people of their moral agency.
You find yourself in the illogical position of suggesting that in order to protect moral agency, the church must remain silent, that God cannot speak.
You want arbiters of virtue to remain silent so that you are undisturbed in your chosen framework; and you would strip others of their rights to free expression in order to buy yourself the illusion of comfort.
You love the dark, and hate the light.
It is the legislation that makes new laws and public policies. Not churches.
OR LIBERAL JUDGES. Judges have no right to change the laws or make new ones.
Ca. voted on this issue twice now. Both times it was defeated.
Churches preach the Bible. Like it or not, the Bible does not commend Homosexuality. It Condemns it. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. The whole city was wiped out.
You vote your conscience, and I will vote mine. Let the people decide what ammendments are constitutional.
And just because I vote one way doesn't mean I hate anybody. It just means that we don't agree.
Look up the stats on life expectancy of a gay male compared to a straight male. Some studies show a 20-33 year difference. If Gay partners are insured automatically don't you think that the rates for everyone else will go up? And they are not allowed to even ask on an insurance form what the sexual orientation is. Even though if you smoke, you can be turned down, they can't turn you down for being gay.
What about adoption. Do you think that a 3 year old boy deserves a Mom and a Dad? If you want to get 'United' in a relationship then do so, but don;t call it marriage. Call it something else. And don't try yo adopt little kids.
I don't care if you agree or not. I am entitled to my opinions.
When Parkie pretends to be wise, the evolution of man takes a few steps back towards the beach.
Perhaps courts can't change existing laws, but they certainly can rule on the constitutionality of them.
Like, duh.
T-H-P-A-R-K-I-E
Like "sparkie" only with a lisp.
I see a lot of people disagreeing with my statement, which is curious as it's just a simple fact...?
Why would it be a test of their faith? Because they got an ash mark on their Nike while putting out the book that was set "ablaze". That blaze must have been 4-5 inches high. WOW!! Always looking for a martyr...aren't we?
Dude, if you let a bunch of foofs terrorize you, you should join their ranks.
I'm sure when they 'stormed a church' as you claim, they were just eager to get on with redecorating the typically staid 'one floor plan fits all' Mo church.
I'll bet they were fantastically dressed!
This group is planning on branching out and they have a ground swell of militant homosexual support.
When is it ever ok to bust into a church just to terrorize the people inside to get your point across Tomster?
One last thing, this wasn't a Momo church that was terrorized. It was your standard Assembly of God and they decorate much better to begin with.
Or were they just terrified by pink confetti?
I didn't suggest it was ok to do....I just think you are a little carried away by your obsessive fear of 'militant homosexuals'.
It's similar to a fear of getting your butt kicked by a mob of stuffed teddy bears. Oh no! A crowd of Militant Paddingtons! Run for your lives!!!
You must stop hate at the root the minute it starts. These people who busted into the church are nothing but hateful bigots who need a lesson on good manners and probably a few days in a warm jail cell.
The point is not that anybody was hurt, but that these militants committed deeply offensive acts, were physically threatening. The whole thing is legitimately characterized as Hate-speech.
They tried to provoke people into responding with force.
If you think this trespass and hate display is tolerable, then I expect you to defend the KKK when they burn crosses too. Are you willing to do that, or do you have different standards.
Personally, I would have just started laughing at the poor, degenerate, immoral, hatemongers. It is supremely ironic that they crave respect, and think that it can be obtained through temper tantrums, threats, violence, vandalism, and force.
The fact that the "gay community" doesn't immediately condemn these miscreants (and all those who've publicly called for retaliation against Mormons and other religionists) merely colors them all with the same turpitude. Your friends are proving themselves to be a depraved mob and, in so doing, have confirmed the worse stereotypes - the stereotypical shoe does seem to fit gays quite nicely.
Do you really want to be viewed as a bunch of degenerate, depraved, carnal, hateful, lawless, selfish, animalistic, deranged miscreants? If not, may I suggest that you work with your gay friends to get them to act responsibly, rationally, intelligently and civilly. Start condemning these lawless hateful acts and get others in your community to speak out against them. But if you continue to justify, defend and harbor these depraved elements of your community, then what more can we conclude but that you are just like them?
Does that make all the people on the "right" mindless zealots that can't wait their turn to strap some C-4 on their chest so they can blow up innocent bystanders at a Starbucks?
I can't think of two women I'd rather pack fudge with than the two lovelies you mentioned....though I'd select Hillary over Nancy, (but just by a tad).
Seriously, all of this vandalism is not going to change anything in the LDS Church. Unfortunately, it may peg the gay & lesbian community as the ones behind the vandalism.
It may very well peg the gay and lesbian community as the vandals, and who exactly would benefit most from such an assumption?
http://sirenschronicles.com/2008/05/28/violence-against-gays-up-in-2007/
Aids... Give me a break. Did your Bishop tell you that?
proof... Found it in 2 minutes... I know I could find others
No going back now...
"The caller who reported the fire told authorities that an LDS regional facilities manager indicated the incident may have been in retaliation to the church's stance on Proposition 8."
Despite what we may believe the motivation to be for this book buring, the caller's report of what someone else said they believed the motivation to be, is, in legal terms, hearsay, not objective proof.
The more biased press these broken windows and burned books receive, the more "copy-cat" acts of vandalism we're going to see. The continued inferences of Prop. 8 retaliation against the LDS Church is quickly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the 4:30 PM KSL TV News yesterday, one of the news anchors even used the word "sabotage" to describe these incidents of vandalism. I did not hear that term used again in the 5 o'clock hour, but I was rather shocked to hear it none-the-less, because these actions may be many things, but for crying out loud, get a dictionary. Sabotage a completely inappropriate word to use to describe these incidents and clearly shows that at least KSL is not being fair and unbiased in their reporting of these incidents.
Now, before anyone Trolls me, please accept that I do NOT condone these acts of vandalism in any way shape or form, regardless of the motivations behind them!
If you are saying it is "just a piece of paper" why oppose it...let the gay community marry. If it means so little to you and a lot to them then obviously it does not hurt you so let them live as FREE AMERICANS like you expect.
It will probably get worse because everyone that knows someone who is gay feels they are unfairly picked on. I have to say that the majority of gay people I know are not overt about their preference. The ones who feel picked on are those that try to justify their behavior to their peers. Like the boy that insisted on being in the drill team. He didn't want to be on the drill team because he liked performing or that he was any good. In fact he ruined any chance for the drill team to compete because he was a clod (just stating he was not coordinated enough to do this). If he had to audition as all of the girls did then he would not have been selected. But because he and his parents went to the school claiming gender bias discrimination he was allowed to be a member of the team. If you knew this guy you would understand that he was only trying to get everyone to say he was a good person for being gay.
He groped other guys and was left off because it is hard to prove sexual harassment on a male. I would have been more willing to accept this guy if he hadn't try to force me to witness his lifestyle first hand. He seemed to act more flamboyant whenever there was a crowd making it clear what his intentions were. It is too bad that simply ignoring his behavior was not possible.
The point of all that is this is typical of the insecurity these people are probably feeling which causes them to do outrageous acts in order to gain attention. Well going from misdemeanor vandalism to felony hate crime is attention that will put him in a place where he can better enjoy his preferences.
But, what if YOU couldn't have a car title, because of the way you were born (color, attraction, etc), and were doomed to walk everywhere for the rest of your life?
Maybe we should get that mapped out for future Psych 101 classes, just like Erikson and Piaget's theories on development.
My guess is, you have no frame of reference. You have no idea what other people are like but you ASSUME they are all like you.
Let me ask you something. No they don't have to be gay. But if they are not attracted to the opposite sex Why be misserable and lie to yourself?
Is that how you cope? Do you lie to yourself and live misserably to hopefully get into heavan?
I had an Uncle who was gay and ended up dying of AIDS. I spoke with my Mom about the situation and she said that as a young teenager, he and his friends were doing things that they shouldn't have been doing: looking at porn, masturbating in front of each other, etc. Well, after high school his friends moved on and married women. My Uncle, however, was now a confused young man. Then he went on an LDS mission and served honorably, but I'm sure those times of "dabbling" haunted him when you're with a dude 24/7 in the mission field.
As a woman, I, personally, find women's bodies more attractive than mens. But, the thought of having a lesbian relationship sickens me and I still love my husband. Because of this mindset, however, if I were to dabble like my Uncle did in my formative years, could things have turned out differently for me? Who knows.
My point is that everybody is tempted with something in this life. But I'm willing to bet that most of us don't know how strong or weak we are. If you avoid the appearance of evil, then you might never have to learn the hard way.
I don't know on what scientific basis you make that statement, but there are many (who are not gay) who believe that there is genetic and biological evidence to suggest that in fact, people are born gay, just as people are born heterosexual.
I'm not a scientist, I'm not gay, and I don't presume to understand the entire philosophy or science behind either argument. I'm sure that both environment and social pressure (norms) do play some role in shaping or deciding which sexual preference may be expressed, but do know (since you used the example) that there are genetic predispositions to alcoholism for example. And in those who have these predispositions, avoiding alcohol is generally the best way to avoid that predisposition developing into a full blown disease, but whether expressed or not, that person IS born with that predisposition.
In actuality, the only difference is the title of the paper received. The two options are 1) certification of marriage and 2) certification of domestic partnership. Other than that, no differences exist.
California Family Code Section 297.5
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Granted throwing a BOM cocktail on the steps of the local ward house isn't the right thing to do, but you have to imagine the frustration that some are feeling right now.
Churches on the other hand object because of the meaning of holy matramony. They use the term marriage to mean something sacred to their religious beliefs. Respect that please.
Part of the problem is that homosexuals refuse to look at the other side of this issue and they won't respect this term marriage that is used by Christians and Jews in this country.
So now the gay community wants to burn a book of Mormon in front of an LDS church. That I'm sure is offensive to Mormons. Go burn a Muslim Coran in front of a Mosque and see where that gets you.
The point is that there are better ways to settle differences on this issue. There must be tollerance on both sides I think.
Nothing hateful has come form the church. On the contrary, in fact- noting but respect and love towards the gay community.
We believe from scripture that it's wrong in the eyes of God. That's the view expressed. Nothing hateful though.
Doesn't make it right though.
We are not vandalizing buildings where gay people meet. We are not setting gay literature on fire at their buildings.
We express our views in a calm, peaceful, law adiding manner. They vandalize buildings, burn books, and try to shout us down in the streets.
That's quite a double standard.
It could've also been the Jewish community.
It could have been a disgruntled member.
It could have been a happy member wanting to frame the gay community.
It could have been you or me.
It could have been any number of people/organizations/groups.
Let's save blame for the culprit....once they are identified.
That's my constititional right, and I've expressed my view. I believe that I can hold signs out in front of Temple Square during conference. I believe that I can hold up "sacred" temple garments for all to see.
I believe that, from scriptures, it is wrong to be a Mormon in the eyes of God.
Nothing hateful though...
P.S. Anyone offended by my post, please respond...
You are causing an error in peoples programming. A divide by zero error.
You don't have to agree, but tolerance should be demonstrated.
Democracy depends on respecting freedom of expression and accepting the voice of the majority. When one disagrees with the majority, they should feel free to fight back through legal channels. Fighting back through violence and vandalism only shows that those committing the acts have little understanding/respect for our democracy.
That way, Mormons will not be able to practice religion as defined by the Constitution. They can still have sacrament meetings, preach the Gospel, and do everything that other religions can do, they just can't call it a religion.
Nothing hateful though...
You make a distinction that flaws your argument. Within the Constitution lie certain rights concerning religion. To change the designation would, indeed, affect the rights offered to the group. For one example, it could be argued that because it is not a "religion" that there would exist no freedom to practice it.
On the other hand lies the gay movement. They claim their rights are being taken away from them, however California law is pretty specific about the issue. There is no difference between the rights offered to a marriage and the rights offered to a domestic partnership. Each even gets their own unique document defining the relationship.
See the difference?
Guitarcr, I've done a little research in regards to the differences between civil unions and marriages because I couldn't figure out why the whole issue to begin with.
Civil unions are those that are recognized by the state no by federal law. There are an additional 1000 + rights you receive federal wise when you're married that you otherwise don't receive because federal laws don't recognize civil unions.
A) To say that it is civil unions that do not receive the benefits is misleading. The Defense of Marriage Act precludes the recognition of a homosexual California marriage when it comes to federal benefits. Even a quick Wikipedia search will help you understand this. Here's what the Act does:
"1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."
B) Most of the benefits you speak of can still be attained through legal contracts. One need only sign a few legal documents and things like estate, power of attorney, etc. can be obtained.
There are arguments to be made, but I don't think you are making the right ones. Prop 8 would only apply to Californians and would not make a difference in the rights offered to gays and lesbians.
"Within the Constitution lie certain rights concerning religion."
Yes. But those rights are not paramount. For instance, one cannot legally practice any religion in which human sacrifice is accepted. In addition, Native Americans must have a permit to practice certain aspects of their beliefs, ones that unless you (or I) have a permit may bot be practiced.
However, let's flip this argument and assume that homosexuals form their own church. Can they now obtain marriage licenses the same as heterosexual couples, especially if it is part of their religion? If not, why not?
"See the difference?"
The difference that you are describing is a "separate but equal" doctrine that was used in order to discriminate against blacks in the first half of the 20th century. It was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In addition, it usually was separate but not equal. Blacks, too argue that they were discriminated against, but the argument was, "No they are not, see they have their bathrooms and we have ours". Never mind that the bathrooms for "colored" were not as clean, not as nice as the bathrooms for whites.
You may see a difference, but that difference is "separate but equal".
There are limitations as to what one can do as an expression of worship in a religion. As long as the acts of a religion do not violate laws, the freedom of religion is, indeed, paramount. There is no ban on religion for religion's sake.
As we flip the argument, I am glad that you realize how one cannot do anything they want in the name of religion. If marriage licenses for homosexuals are not allowed under the law, claiming religious practice would not likely get far. Take a look at the FLDS church's belief in polygamy for an example of how this works.
While you attempt to claim "separate but equal" as my reasoning, I must disagree. There are no separate rights. The rights received are one and the same under CA law. No separate bathrooms. No separate housing. It is simply a legal designation, much like a heterosexual couple cannot be designated by the term homosexual. Is it discrimination that men and women are classified as two different genders? Is it discrimination that you cannot register your car as a boat?
Hardly.
"As long as the acts of a religion do not violate laws, the freedom of religion is, indeed, paramount."
Then, by definition, it is not paramount.
"I am glad that you realize how one cannot do anything they want in the name of religion."
Which means that it is not paramount. Do you get that? Paramount means that it trumps all other rights. In other words, religion can be restricted. I'll also go so far as to say that it has been restricted, meaning that it is not paramount.
So, I'll cut to the chase. Effectively you claim that the flaw in my argument is that religion is protected and therefore any action removing a group as a religion denies that protection.
This would be true only if religious rights were paramount. If religious rights were paramount, any group that wished to kill other human beings as sacrifices would be allowed to practice. If religious rights were paramount, any group that wished to call themselves a religion could. But, as you have pointed out (1) you can practice a religion as long as it doesn't violate laws and (2) one cannot do anything they want in the name of religion.
Even if religious rights were paramount, there is nothing in my argument that PREVENTS Mormons from practicing their religion, they just can't call it a religion and therefore no flaw in my reasoning as you stated. In other words they would be able to do everything that they can do now, they just can't call it a religion.
Does that sound familiar? At all?
You have claimed that a homosexual domestic partnership is equal to heterosexual marriage, that there is no difference between the two as far as rights go.
"Each even gets their own unique document defining the relationship."
So a homosexual domestic partnership gets a unique (separate) document and a heterosexual marriage gets a unique (separate) document.
You claim there is a difference, but what you have described is a "separate but equal" doctrine. If there are no separate rights, meaning that the rights are the same, why is there a distinction between two? Again, "Separate but equal".
But in your case, you are trying to push the buttons of church members and be offensive. Things like garments are sacred to faithful members, and "holding them up for all to see" is just a lame attempt to be offensive and disrespectful.
So don't think that that kind of behavior is just the same as the way the church and its members have acted in this issue, because the church has been very tolerant and respectful of the those on the other side of this debate. Standing up for your beliefs on an issue compared to just trying to offend those on the other side of the issue are two very different things.
In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better. For example:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
Hold your heads up high – you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time.
These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official LDS Church policy or doctrine.
That being said, if this were actually the motivating factor - I can't think of a better way to try and get someone to see your point of view than to BURN STUFF on their doorstep!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/index.html
As for the "Thank God for IED's and dead soldiers." Personally it makes me glad I'm Athiest. But I don't blame religion for those nut jobs.
But what can you do right? I'm saying don't look at the whole community for a few religious nut jobs... Or gay nut jobs.
It goes both ways no matter how you look at it.
“The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and dependent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah will say, ‘The work is done.'”
Imagine if the book that was set on fire was the Koran. That would make international news and many thousands of people would literally be up in arms.
This is totally outrageous. No group or individual is going to win the sympathy and support of the public by vandalizing churches and destroying holy things.
Whatever sympathy I may have had for the gay movement is quickly evaporating.
You may want to hold off on judging the entire homosexual community based on the actions of an unknown individual.
As for sympathy for the gay movement evaporating... there is none. They are committing hate crimes, as if somehow if they commit enough of them it will help their cause. How dare they.
I think shade said it best, if this was a koran, they would be beheaded in most of the world, but because it was a book of mormon, it takes three hours to respond.
Since when were mormons excluded from hate crime legislation and quick response?
The Book of Mormons or the Bible or any other publication is just paper.
By the way, I'm against gay marriage and am not defending the gays. I applaude the Mormon Chruch for helping to pass California's constitutional amemdment banning gay marriage. Now let's get the gay marriage registry made illegal in Utah.
Start thinking about the hate crime legislation? Why is it there is it discriminates against mormons but protects everyone else?
Seriously wasn't the gay protest about "equality"??? But now that mormons are being perscuted, having doors shot through, and burning their books, suddenly equality also goes up in smoke as far as hate crimes go???
Really, I say get rid of hate crime legislation until it protects everyone... otherwise wake up and realize that persecuting others based solely on their religious beliefs is never going to bring equality.
It makes those being persecuted MORE determined in their faith, and more determined to work together to prevent legislation that perverts the sacredness of marriage.
Reading these articles makes me proud of my vote that "marriage is between a man and a woman."
Live by the Wiccan crede "if it harms none, do what you will."
Remember the words of Mohandas Gandhi
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS."
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
"Hatred can be overcome only by love."
www.greatest-quotations.com/
I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of the world we live in. Our founding fathers would be beating us all down for the pathtic way we are living our lifes? Why is it so uncool to stand up for something you believe in? This country was founded on christian vaules and people fought and died for the right to uphold those vaules and now we burn books of churches? Now we say bad is good and good is bad.
Wake up, start actting like men a woman, that's right Men And Women and remember that if you believe in Faith, Family, and Life we must respect eachother and be truthful in our dealings with one another.
Just so you know, to "real cristians", the book of mormon is actually offensive...
I don't approve of such hate, but haven't you notice how it seems like the mormons are always the ones being picked on when it comes to religion? They would well be more accepted if they just minded their own business a little more.
So I guess what goes around comes around...
If you haven't heard, a group of gay protestors stormed a church in Michigan on Sunday. They screamed obscenities to the church goers with megaphones, threw condoms and pink confetti around, threatened the pastor, yelloed Jesus was gay, and a couple of lesbians started making out on the altar. The group is called Bash Back and their plan is to start branching out into every state. They also plan on confronting Christians in their churches on a regular schedule.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80743
What a sad day.
Sorry,stoned right now
I've read blog after blog from the 'regular' Utah winter tourist stating they're going to boycott Utah this season.
Most Utah Outdoor Retailers/Ski Resorts only stay in business because of the winter profits. I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of Mom and Pop places going under not to mention numerous Resorts laying people off. I just want to say thanks to the Mormon for putting their two cents where it didn't belong.
Anyone hiring??
Don't blame the LDS church for the global economic downturn...
Yeah, I hear of all the boycotts. Boycott Utah, Idaho, Mormons, Black owned businesses. I will tell you this... Utah is the largest producer of Madonna, Cher and Liberace outfits. This could be a huge hit to this economy.
I didn't realize all 'regular' tourists were gay, because the only people likely to listen to the nonsense of gays are can't think for themselves gays. By way of comparison should all 'regular' tourists not visit New York because their political view don't agree with yours? That's pretty shallow by all accounts.
P.S. It's nice that you keep such vigilant tabs on Utah's 'regular' winter tourists.
EGUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL
Redefining marriage, however, is not contained to your own home. It affects society and those to whom marriage is sacred. It is not right for you to try to force those people to redefine what marriage means and what they must accept as marriage.
You and your pro-Proposition 8 friends keep spreading lies. Not only did the church encourage its members to donate money in support of Proposition 8, it DID itself donate money. Campaign finance records show the LDS Church made its first financial contribution in support of Proposition 8 in October. The in-kind donation was $2,078.97.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.asp
"I read tonight that some people are advocating a boycott of Utah... i.e., boycotting tourism in that state, boycotting Sundance... sounds like a good idea. The Sundance fest can move to another state. To those who have been posting claims that it "wasn't the church that attacked proposition 8, it was members of the church donating money out of their own pockets," and other such fluff, this is a silly argument. The church organized its members and is responsible in this case for their actions. It has taken it on itself to attack and destroy Gay marriages and families, and impose its homophobic values on the country. It deserves the invective being aimed in its direction. Frankly, it deserves worse. I'd love to see the movement to tax the church gain momentum. Fun stuff!
"I read tonight that 12 new film festivals are considering Utah because of the LDS stance on California proposition 8."
Now that's concrete evidence.
And a correction.
We're not 'homophobic'. We're homo-aware.
You can talk all you want about equality, but we all know the ULTIMATE GOAL is to adopt and corrupt children, providing a steady stream of concubines for old gays.
Gayness is a behavior, a perversion, a disorder, and it should not in any way be considered on a par with love and marriage.
Witness the fits of rage exhibited by gays as examples of their instability.
The book, the book, the book is on fire.
We don't need no water, let the mother (no swearing) burn!!!
Maybe the book is gay, cause it's flaming!!!!!
Gay Marriage has one purpose only: to legitimize gay adoption and indoctrination of children.
We all know it, we all know why, let's stop pretending and dancing around the issue.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13210
What was normal yesterday is not normal today. Hence the civil rights movement of the 60's.
Love is love. A civil rights movement is here in the present day and it is not going away. Whether you like it or not we will have equal rights someday and I pray you wont be too ashamed of your bigotry.
PLUS...
We have the exact same rights.
I can marry a woman, I can't marry a man. Neither can I marry a monkey, a cow, a child, or a mannequin.
You can marry a woman, you cannot marry a man. Neither can you marry a monkey, a cow, a child, or a mannequin.
True equality in every sense of the word.
There is an agenda behind what you are pushing, and equal rights has little to do with it. The agenda is equal access to children.
We all know it. So do you.
How old were you when you had your first gay experience, and how old was your 'teacher'?
I don't expect an honest answer.
(Sorry for the rambling posts)
Well, maybe some of what I have been saying is getting to you. I don't know . . .
Thank goodness we're all different and contribute to society in our own ways.
Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average, 150.2 boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8 girls are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender. Incredibly, homosexual offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.
Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the total population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2 million in 1991. During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical Abstracts" show that 6-8 million boys under age 18 had been sexually abused at some time prior to age 18.
Meanwhile, the population of heterosexual men in the U.S. was approximately 86-88 million in 1991, and an estimated eight million girls had been sexually abused at some time prior to age 18.
Based on the government's own statistics -- the "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls," published by the U.S. Commerce Department -- Reisman cited the following for that year:
* Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
* An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all boys.
* Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male.
* Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18.
Arguing a point does not however change the proof of a thing one way or another. I'm glad we live in a country where we can have differing opinions without killing each other. I suppose that is a sign of a true democracy.
I'm really thinking it was just a case of the true church idea backfiring and the book self imploded.
if you held a book burning, people would what is so offensive a material it needed to be erased from earth. Others would just follow along and not even ask what books are being burned but agree that if something is offensive it must be bad and expusled from earth.
but what if you held a book burning and no one came - would it still be a book burnning.
You think because a few people MAY have shot a few doors and burned a book on set of stairs that the ENTIRE movement for equality among this subgroup is full of vengefull bitter people.
Really?
You think their anger at who they perceive as an instrumental voice (and financere) of their segregration is proof that the ENTIRE subgroup is "bad".
Really?
Do you all really want an itemized list of what has been done (and is CURRENTLY being done) in the name of religion?
Shall we all then accept the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials, Slavery, Laremy, 9/11, and Sean Hannity as PROOF that ALL religion is inherently evil?
When was the last time any of us got our cars egged for being straight?
When was the last time we got the crap beat out of us for bonding with someone with the wrong body parts?
What would you all say if all these "homos" moved to the same state, got a majority, and voted to ban all heterosexual marriage - or even order an extermination order?
Yet THEY are the bad people becuase they wish voice themselves in the only legal method they have left or because a choice few go overboard into illegal activity?
REALLY!??
Honestly, the only reason half of you hypocrites here scold these peoples' particularly painful loss is because you're still trying to forget the way YOU behaved when Mitt Romney conceded his election and you all cried discrimination based on his religion.
The irony is thick enough to chew.
Now your position on whether homosexuality is or is not morally correct, well that's a different discussion altogether but still has nothing to do with "hate".
Get serious, just because a person or an organization sticks up for what they believe does not mean that they hate the people who may be affected by it! You may believe it is wrong to cuss and someone else may not. Just because you believe that way does not mean you hate the person cussing. Same thing with the legislature and the no smoking in public places. Are the proponents of that policy guilty of hating smokers?
That's what are country was founded on.
We are all innocent until proven guilty.
So name me the compelling reason to deny gay marriage.
That said, all rights are already protected under the current California law. I repeat the following information because it fits well into this discussion.
California Family Code Section 297.5
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
And if precidence is all you need to maintain the status quo, why can women now vote and why don't we still have separate drinking fountains for blacks?
What compelling reason did these groups have, other than the very idea of equality for ALL?
What compelling reason did Obama just get elected for? He was elected for change itself because the status quo of the last eight years is simply WRONG.
Well the status quo is no different for gay couples.
"Civil union" is just another phrase for "separate drinking fountain".
Precedence is the exact reason to maintain the status quo until a compelling reason arises to change it. Change does not occur, nor should it, until a compelling reason arises.
If I'm not mistaken, the movements for equality you mentioned were compelled by equal rights ("equality for all"). Until you can show exactly which rights are at stake in California, there is no comparison. The movements you mentioned were successful for a reason.
You also bring up the recent vote - could there also have been a compelling reason for why Proposition 8 was passed by a majority vote? Why should their voice be discounted because you disagree?
If the benefits offered to civil unions in California were distinct/different from those of married couples, it would be a sad thing. The "drinking fountain," however, is one and the same.
Thank you. Have a great day
Also for your information the city of Nauvoo at the time that its height was the largest city west of the Mississippi, who's founder in your words was a 'huge druggie' Not bad for someone working impaired all the time.
All thing bear witness of the reality of a living God to the believing heart. The limits of your beliefs form the limits of your perception. What do you believe Chris? I believe that God made us free agents and that he only proves to us that which we choose to believe. I'm grateful for my freedom. Would you prefer to be forced to believe? I believe that was the rally cry of Lucifer and his followers.
Because of your agency, An angel could visit you, and you could still rationalize it away. But God doesn't work that way. He confirms truth by personal revelation AFTER you choose to believe in faith; and this for agency's sake - and for the sake of the righteous.
All truth is comprehended in this manner. Even science doesn't pretend to prove truth. And if you think it does you have been fooled. The scientific method can disprove a false hypothesis - that is true; but even the best experiment can never "Prove" a hypothesis is "true" because the possibility always exists that some future experiment will contradict the hypothesis. So you see, also, strictly speaking, it is irrational to ask someone to prove a truth to you. The logical burden is on the disbeliever to prove it is false.
What you fail to realize is that it is we who are being proven, not truth. Therefore, be wise, be circumspect, be humble and above all, be believing. I testify with authority based on pure knowledge that your destiny is in your hands and totally dependent upon your ability to believe: you will obtain no knowledge beyond that which you first choose to believe.
Even when God appears in glory with his hosts, you won't see him as he is because you'll see him through your unbelieving and dark heart (lest you repent).
On the great and dreadful day of the Lord, those who worship and love him will have their love and faith amplified in him and will see him as he is and rejoice in deep gratitude because of his greatness and power. Those who deny him and don't believe will project their own dark motives against his manifest power and will cringe and shrink in dread for fear that he will do as they would.
Here is your sign:
Unless you repent of your disbelief and humble yourself before God, believing that he is and that he has all power and calling upon him in faith, the proof you seek will come upon you and catch you unprepared. Even though truth will be clearly manifest, you will still not understand it because of unbelief. In that moment, the ground upon which you stand will give way, and what you thought was terra firma will be revealed to you as unstable and unsound. Fear will grip you as the foundations of your world, all of your false a priori perceptions about reality, melt away into nothingness and panic will cause your heart to fail. Without anchor, without support, your chains will drag you down into the endless gulf of misery, despair and woe.
When that happens you will recall my words and wish that you had believed them now while you still had time to shape your belief and increase your faith.
Chris. I know what I'm telling you is true. Will you tell me that I don't know? You may not know that Joseph Smith was the means by which the Living God established his authority and church to prepare a people to be ready to receive him. But just because you don't know it doesn't mean that that knowledge can't be held. I bear solemn witness that I have that knowledge and that it is true.
You can either humble yourself before God and sincerely seek his help in opening your heart and mind, or you can persist in ignorance and unbelief. Choose carefully how you tread, it is your everlasting soul that is at stake.
Just my two cents
One day, I promise you that you'll discover it is you that have unwitting placed unfounded faith in unreasonable presumptions. In that day, Mockers shall mourn and Scorners shall dread.
Somewhere, deep down your soul knows you are on an unstable foundation so you gather comfort in the reinforcing power of numbers, a proud demeanor, and attempts to build yourself up by pulling others down.
The ignorance, gullibility, foolishness that you see is a manifestation of your own crippled heart through which you perceive and is not a reflection of reality and of others.
Choose carefully what you believe, for your beliefs frame the limits of your perception.
If you are intelligent, then be wise also.
Ministers will no longer be able to preach sermons about one man / one woman marriage. It will be "hate speech" if they do. Might as well burn those pages in the Bible.
Children will be taught the ways of homosexuality, because it will be law. As if their early development years aren't tough enough.
In Massachuchettes, homophobic parents are now being taught by an $850,000.00 fund given by their legislature... on how to accept gay living.
Teenagers who are confused are directed to gay contacts for counseling from their public schools.
Ministers who refuse to marry same sex couples are fined by the state.
What does it all mean? The end.
It will not be the end if gays get married. It will not be the end when people start truly understanding that everyone is different.
/Heavy, heavy sarcasm
Thanks
The world we live in loves sin and hates any type of countability. That's why people say there is no God...because they can't think that there is going to be a time for accountability for their actions...well guess what...everyone dies it's a fact and I sure hope I'm living the way God would want me to live. Ignorance is bliss and gays and lesbians, hatemongers like vyo, fishandie and anti-mormons will have a rude awakening when that time comes.
Purely a suggestion for some one quite confused as you are. >.
I have another offtopic, but relevant comment. It's interesting that many pro-Proposition 8 supporters continue to bring that debate into this discussion. Several of you have indicated that the LDS church did not contribute to the cause. That is entirely false.
Not only did the church encourage its members to donate money in support of Proposition 8, it DID itself donate money. Campaign finance records show the LDS Church made its first financial contribution in support of Proposition 8 in October. The in-kind donation was $2,078.97. Additionally, both the Salt Lake Tribute and KSL have reported this information. If you're going to say something, say it right please.
Regardless, it's not appropriate for a journalist to record hearsay, assumptions, or maybes. The man is correct that this incident MAY have been related to recent events. On the other hand, the incident could have been related to a top secret alien invasion. It could have been caused by a two-headed cat. It could have been caused by a bitter Republican. The point is that while such speculation is entertaining, it's useless and irrelevent and doesn't belong in a professional news article in my opinion.
Mormons are getting ridicule because we stand up for our beliefs? Don't hate us because we won't allow biggits, liberals and hatemongers like you to control our lives and this country.
Why are Mormons even being targeted? Are you too ignorant to even take the time to find out what we believe in like... peace, family, morals, helping others, charity, patriotism and living a healthy lifestyle.
I guarantee that the LDS Church has donated more financial aid and support to the world and people in need than all of the Gay and Lesbian organizations put together. All that gays are accomplishing right now with there "hate the Mormons" attitude is make more anti-gay people in the world...so keep up the good work and show us your true "rainbow" colors.
Everyone, lets all remember that in these times of chaos, hatred, and anger, it will be logic, reason, and love that will save us. Calm down everyone. Stop being so angry. I am tired just reading everyones posts...
T. G. Petersen
I can't entirely agree, however, that this could have been done by anybody and therefore we shouldn't think that this was likely done by somebody angry with the church over its position regarding prop 8. Technically, yes it could have been done by anybody, but realistically, it doesn't take Sherlock to figure that this was probably done by somebody angry with the Church's position in this debate, or perhaps, though I think less likely, by somebody trying to frame the gay community. Even less likely is that it is just a random attack on the church over something completely unrelated. Possible, yes, just not so likely. Not like these kind of things have just been happening every day all along.
Yet these "retalliations" need to be taken serious by authorities. It would be my opinion, they are going to continue to escalate. They should be treated as hate crimes and the FBI needs to take notice. I think the gay and lesbian community would agree, as nothing good of this can come about for their cause. If responsible leadership exist in the gay and lesbian community, where is it???
They keep calling it "retaliation."
If this was the Talmud burned on the steps of a Jewish synagogue, there would be outrage.
If this was a cross burning on the front of a Christian church, there would be an investigation.
What's the difference?